When I first registered to vote many years ago, I was told to sign my name so they'd have a record of my signature. From my sixteenth birthday, I made my signature more blocky to reflect my usual writing of all caps (small cap type). The lady looked at it, though it was a bit more fancy than standard block, and said, "You can't PRINT your name. You have to write it!"
Anyways, one good thing to do away with cursive is the inane desire to prove you are who you are by your cursive writing. Photo IDs, maybe even sophisticated thumbprinting systems, but with proper practice anyone's writing can be duplicated.
IE 6, at least on NT-based systems, even screws up the palettes on PNGs.
I can save a graphic using RGB 102,0,0 and I would have to change it to RGB 115,0,0 or something similar to match the background color attribute of the HTML page.
IE is horrendous on PNG graphics, still to this day.
Good Riddance to this guy. One of his lawsuits went so far as to say these forums and competition be barred from using his name in their websites, so much that he listed PETS and WAREHOUSE as words pet forums and pet warehouse-sized internet businesses would be unable to use them.
He's one of those thousand lawyers who are a good start on the bottom of a lake, from that old lawyer joke.
In a civil suit, it's the side who's most correct to the judge who wins. SCO doesn't need to prove where the source came from, nor do they need to prove who wrote it, but rather that it appears earlier in their own software or perhaps through a connection with IBM, and then IBM's defense has to be rather weak.
It's possible that SCO can win in this without having to prove that indeed IBM stole trade secrets. Just nudge the judge enough with techno speak and tons of evidence of SCO code that will be kept under wraps after the trial, and hope that IBM's lawyers can't find earlier versions, figure out who put it there and whether he added it to other software as well, etc...
WordPerfect is also the best word processor for writers because of its ability to properly typographically lay out a page. Word can screw up severely, even to the point that submitting a work on disk or electronically between versions or even platforms can cause your markup to be askew.
If OpenOffice.org or other open source projects want to take up where WordPerfect might be dropped (if Vector chooses to kill it or take it the Real way), Typography, Grammar/Spell Checker lookups, Document Analysis (passives, incompletes, etc) and a saved format that does not change between versions and platforms.
Word fails miserably at all of these (if you believe that Word's Spellcheck is great, check out what WordPerfect's does and be blown away). If Vector doesn't want to continue the line, or want to make it more like Word, then I do hope that OpenOffice.org or another word processing suite can take WordPerfect's place.
Just poke holes in the jar's lid with a screwdriver. Previous experience has shown it is better to do this before the lid is on the jar with the monkey inside.
Apparently I missed when id Software stopped doing this?
They release most of the applicable source code, give away the mapping resources, and even post on their.plan files when someone has a really cool modification.
I'd say that actively encourages users to tinker with their games. Or if you meant they needed to provide incentive like money and an engine license to get what id pretty much does with just great quality games?
The bill, authored by Sen. Sam Brownback, would regulate digital rights management systems, granting consumers the right to resell copy-protected products and requiring digital media manufacturers to prominently disclose to consumers the presence of anticopying technology in their products.
The Kansas Republican's bill requires that a copyright holder obtain a judge's approval before receiving the name of an alleged peer-to-peer pirate. That would amend the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which a federal court concluded enables a copyright holder to force the disclosure of a suspected pirate's identity without a judge's review. This law is at issue in the recording industry's recent pursuit of the identity of a Verizon Communications subscriber.
It would *ALSO* limit the ability for producers to restrict fair-use abilities of end-users. Pretty much, it's saying you're perfectly fine to sell your movies, music, books, etc., however you want, so long as you enable the end user to do whatever they want within legal reason with it.
If you want to sell it, turn your DVD into a Hi-8 tape instead, or have your eBook be read aloud to you by a reader, even though the company who produced the product did not want you to do any of these, looks like this bill would require them to allow you to do this.
I'd say that's a good bill and still allows the producers to sell their works however they wish, again, without restricting the end-user's ability to resell or change the medium.
Problem with that is that it doesn't only include Buy It Now as a feature. eBay owns Half.com which is also a fixed-price market system integrated into eBay.
The patents are frivilous and hopefully whomever buys them at least opens them, or opens them after they get their return investment.
If I recall, LinuxTag either produces or distributes Knoppix Linux, which would be considered part of the "You put out Linux, you have to pay." So they could file suit against SCO in theory to say what are they infringing upon if anything, or to stop threatening people already.
Or, like I've been talking to a lawyer regarding my open source project, an e-commerce suite. Seems that there are a few software patents that the software comes close to infringing, based on basic internet technologies like cookies, sessions and database manipulation. Others, like one-click, are also closely represented.
Why on earth I should worry about infringing on SOFTWARE ideas, I have no idea. Strange new world.
How is it clearly a parody of American Greetings' trademarks? It parodied American McGee, but had no wit nor criticism of American Greetings itself.
IANALE (either), but there is some basic test to parody, which is that you can't use other people's trademarks or copyrights in your parody if you aren't targeting them.
You can also ask them to send you their policies and sales in writing. In fact, make sure you get them in several languages. Even better, make sure you get them in COBOL, C++ and Perl as well.
Here's an unofficial script for Reloaded. From the trailers so far it looks accurate, but some things about it could have been changed. Looks like they've moved the Bullet-Time from the actual bullets and put it more into action. I'd love to see the motorcycle scene played out on the large screen as well.
If you actually parody the mark itself. However, using someone else's trademark in your parody of an unrelated item *IS* infringing, as the parody itself is not of the trademark.
This is why you cannot make a "BOSD...for Dummies" book to ridicule MicroSoft, because the...for Dummies mark is still owned, and not the target of the parody.
Which is exactly why they *HAD* to do what they did.
Corporations can lose their trademark protection if they don't actively persue infringements. As you say, AG wasn't the target, but their trademarks were openly used in a parody of a video game maker.
Had they done nothing, someone else could have used it in an infringement suit later to say the trademark no longer was defended.
This is just sad that not only was this in YRO pointing to AG as the problem, but that so many people want to boycott them because of how mean they were.
Capcom, Inc., sues Sony, claiming its newest game, Sony vs. Marvel, violates its trademarks and dilutes its market share. The game, featuring Sony character "Spider-Man" and other properties tag-team fighting members of Marvel's legal teams, was first developed by Capcom. Since then, Sony has "relatively taken over the game, branded it as theirs, removed all ties to Capcom and used the characters to market other Sony products," an insider at Capcom claimed.
Slashdot Mirror
Strange anecdote...
When I first registered to vote many years ago, I was told to sign my name so they'd have a record of my signature. From my sixteenth birthday, I made my signature more blocky to reflect my usual writing of all caps (small cap type). The lady looked at it, though it was a bit more fancy than standard block, and said, "You can't PRINT your name. You have to write it!"
Anyways, one good thing to do away with cursive is the inane desire to prove you are who you are by your cursive writing. Photo IDs, maybe even sophisticated thumbprinting systems, but with proper practice anyone's writing can be duplicated.
IE 6, at least on NT-based systems, even screws up the palettes on PNGs.
I can save a graphic using RGB 102,0,0 and I would have to change it to RGB 115,0,0 or something similar to match the background color attribute of the HTML page.
IE is horrendous on PNG graphics, still to this day.
Good Riddance to this guy. One of his lawsuits went so far as to say these forums and competition be barred from using his name in their websites, so much that he listed PETS and WAREHOUSE as words pet forums and pet warehouse-sized internet businesses would be unable to use them.
He's one of those thousand lawyers who are a good start on the bottom of a lake, from that old lawyer joke.
[plus, two times in bankruptcy in 13 years?]
Not necessarily.
In a civil suit, it's the side who's most correct to the judge who wins. SCO doesn't need to prove where the source came from, nor do they need to prove who wrote it, but rather that it appears earlier in their own software or perhaps through a connection with IBM, and then IBM's defense has to be rather weak.
It's possible that SCO can win in this without having to prove that indeed IBM stole trade secrets. Just nudge the judge enough with techno speak and tons of evidence of SCO code that will be kept under wraps after the trial, and hope that IBM's lawyers can't find earlier versions, figure out who put it there and whether he added it to other software as well, etc...
I do hope IBM prevails, though, for all of Linux.
WordPerfect is also the best word processor for writers because of its ability to properly typographically lay out a page. Word can screw up severely, even to the point that submitting a work on disk or electronically between versions or even platforms can cause your markup to be askew.
If OpenOffice.org or other open source projects want to take up where WordPerfect might be dropped (if Vector chooses to kill it or take it the Real way), Typography, Grammar/Spell Checker lookups, Document Analysis (passives, incompletes, etc) and a saved format that does not change between versions and platforms.
Word fails miserably at all of these (if you believe that Word's Spellcheck is great, check out what WordPerfect's does and be blown away). If Vector doesn't want to continue the line, or want to make it more like Word, then I do hope that OpenOffice.org or another word processing suite can take WordPerfect's place.
Just poke holes in the jar's lid with a screwdriver. Previous experience has shown it is better to do this before the lid is on the jar with the monkey inside.
Apparently I missed when id Software stopped doing this?
.plan files when someone has a really cool modification.
They release most of the applicable source code, give away the mapping resources, and even post on their
I'd say that actively encourages users to tinker with their games. Or if you meant they needed to provide incentive like money and an engine license to get what id pretty much does with just great quality games?
RTA, though.
The bill, authored by Sen. Sam Brownback, would regulate digital rights management systems, granting consumers the right to resell copy-protected products and requiring digital media manufacturers to prominently disclose to consumers the presence of anticopying technology in their products.
The Kansas Republican's bill requires that a copyright holder obtain a judge's approval before receiving the name of an alleged peer-to-peer pirate. That would amend the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which a federal court concluded enables a copyright holder to force the disclosure of a suspected pirate's identity without a judge's review. This law is at issue in the recording industry's recent pursuit of the identity of a Verizon Communications subscriber.
It would *ALSO* limit the ability for producers to restrict fair-use abilities of end-users. Pretty much, it's saying you're perfectly fine to sell your movies, music, books, etc., however you want, so long as you enable the end user to do whatever they want within legal reason with it.
If you want to sell it, turn your DVD into a Hi-8 tape instead, or have your eBook be read aloud to you by a reader, even though the company who produced the product did not want you to do any of these, looks like this bill would require them to allow you to do this.
I'd say that's a good bill and still allows the producers to sell their works however they wish, again, without restricting the end-user's ability to resell or change the medium.
Wisconsin has some roads that are highway RK, EE, etc.
So you'd have stuff like 1600 HWY EE
Problem with that is that it doesn't only include Buy It Now as a feature. eBay owns Half.com which is also a fixed-price market system integrated into eBay.
The patents are frivilous and hopefully whomever buys them at least opens them, or opens them after they get their return investment.
If I recall, LinuxTag either produces or distributes Knoppix Linux, which would be considered part of the "You put out Linux, you have to pay." So they could file suit against SCO in theory to say what are they infringing upon if anything, or to stop threatening people already.
Just a thought.
How do we stop people like Bezos from patenting ideas and methods based on patent-free web standards like cookies and databases?
To read what one author has written regarding tracking and stored data on humans, read:
http://www.sfwriter.com/exho.htm
Really good trilogy so far and it raises the question whether no privacy can benefit a society.
Except that Universal, where Meyers is head, is the company putting out _Seabiscuit_, which Tobey stars.
Or, like I've been talking to a lawyer regarding my open source project, an e-commerce suite. Seems that there are a few software patents that the software comes close to infringing, based on basic internet technologies like cookies, sessions and database manipulation. Others, like one-click, are also closely represented.
Why on earth I should worry about infringing on SOFTWARE ideas, I have no idea. Strange new world.
Nostalgia for those old TRS-80s?
Is that the RIAA complains of unfair trading of copyrighted songs.
The RIAA labels do not own rights to all the copyrighted songs, and some artists grant rights to exchange their works, even on P2P services, freely.
The RIAA speech needs to stop being so broad and arrogant, already.
You did notice that Alice in Wonderland and The Wizard of Oz are in the public domain, while Strawberry Shortcake is not?
So yes, he would have to license the trademarks of American Greetings to make such a game.
How is it clearly a parody of American Greetings' trademarks? It parodied American McGee, but had no wit nor criticism of American Greetings itself.
IANALE (either), but there is some basic test to parody, which is that you can't use other people's trademarks or copyrights in your parody if you aren't targeting them.
You can also ask them to send you their policies and sales in writing. In fact, make sure you get them in several languages. Even better, make sure you get them in COBOL, C++ and Perl as well.
Here's an unofficial script for Reloaded. From the trailers so far it looks accurate, but some things about it could have been changed. Looks like they've moved the Bullet-Time from the actual bullets and put it more into action. I'd love to see the motorcycle scene played out on the large screen as well.
If you actually parody the mark itself. However, using someone else's trademark in your parody of an unrelated item *IS* infringing, as the parody itself is not of the trademark.
...for Dummies" book to ridicule MicroSoft, because the ...for Dummies mark is still owned, and not the target of the parody.
This is why you cannot make a "BOSD
Which is exactly why they *HAD* to do what they did.
Corporations can lose their trademark protection if they don't actively persue infringements. As you say, AG wasn't the target, but their trademarks were openly used in a parody of a video game maker.
Had they done nothing, someone else could have used it in an infringement suit later to say the trademark no longer was defended.
This is just sad that not only was this in YRO pointing to AG as the problem, but that so many people want to boycott them because of how mean they were.
Slashdot seems to have weird flops when it posts stories, sometimes really late:
2003-04-11 04:37:21 Are Mail-In Rebates All A Scam? (articles,money) (rejected)
This was on MSNBC over a week ago.
In related news...
Capcom, Inc., sues Sony, claiming its newest game, Sony vs. Marvel, violates its trademarks and dilutes its market share. The game, featuring Sony character "Spider-Man" and other properties tag-team fighting members of Marvel's legal teams, was first developed by Capcom. Since then, Sony has "relatively taken over the game, branded it as theirs, removed all ties to Capcom and used the characters to market other Sony products," an insider at Capcom claimed.